In many industries today capability models (CMs) are used to assist organizations in developing their assets, including people, process and technology assets, to improve long-term organization performance. For example, the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University and the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) have developed various CMs, including those for software, systems engineering and integrated product development. These CMs are typically used to assist organizations in the evolution of a process from an ad hoc, chaotic process to a mature, disciplined process. According to one CM, the Systems Engineering Capability Model (EIA-731) developed by EIA, a systems engineering process can be placed into one of five capability levels indicative of the level of development of the process. Increasing in maturity and including a default initial level, the capability levels consist of: performed, managed, defined, measured and optimizing.
To assess a process of an organization utilizing a particular CM, a sponsor typically sponsors an appraisal, or assessment, of the process, which is generally broken down into focus, best practice or process areas. Organizations typically use assessments to identify specific areas for improvement based on known, general areas of deficiency from within the process, and to help make the decisions required to effectuate change in the process and/or organization. To conduct an assessment, an assessment team typically utilizes a relevant CM in conjunction with an assessment method, such as the Systems Engineering Capability Model Appraisal Method developed by EIA.
Referring to FIG. 1, , conventional assessment methods generally proceed through several individual and group exercises, beginning with acquiring information about the process and the organization, and analyzing the information to develop an initial set of preliminary findings about the process, or specifically the identified focus areas within the process (blocks 20, 30, 40 and 50). The top preliminary findings are then presented to members of the organization participating in the assessment (i.e., the organization participants) for comments (block 60). Whereas the number of top preliminary findings presented can vary, the number is typically on the order of forty or more preliminary findings. From the comments, the top preliminary findings are then revised into final findings that are thereafter presented to the organization (blocks 70 and 80). After presenting the final findings, the assessment team typically presents a set of recommendations to improve the process (block 90). Whereas conventional assessment methods can provide an adequate assessment of the process of an organization, they have drawbacks. Conventional assessments are generally unpredictable due to variations in the training and experience of the organization participants and the assessment team. Typically, conventional assessments proceed through the several group exercises to arrive at a consensus with respect to developing the initial and final findings, generally with all or at least a majority agreement among members of the assessment team required for a piece of information to be made a preliminary finding, or a preliminary finding to be made a final finding. The nature of developing the final findings from difficult group exercises can further exploit the variations among organization participants and assessment teams, even though the exercises often involve checks on accuracy, corroboration, validation, and involve writing and rewriting by the assessment team and the organization participants.
Additionally, because of the difficult group exercises involved and the time required to arrive at a consensus with respect to developing the initial and final findings, conventional assessment methods can last for an unnecessarily long period of time and can result in inaccurate assessments. Conventional assessments typically require time commitments on the order of 500-1000 hours over a two or more week period, and can include group exercises that can last extended periods of time as members of the assessment team (as well as the organization participants in the case of providing comments regarding the top draft findings) discuss and re-discuss specific pieces of information and/or findings. In this regard, Table 1 illustrates a typical time frame to complete each step of a conventional assessment.
TABLE 1Time RequiredAssessment Stepto CompleteFill Out Questionnaire1DayAnalyze Questionnaire1DayReviewing Documents2DaysConducting Interviews2DaysDeveloping Draft Findings2DaysPresenting Draft Findings½DayRevising Draft Findings1DayPresenting Final Findings½DayProviding Recommendations1DayAssessment Complete:11DaysBecause of the unnecessarily long periods of time these group exercises can require, the tendency increases for members of the assessment team and/or the organization participants to halfheartedly acquiesce on particular issues of contention in an effort to end the group exercise. Such acquiescence increases the likelihood of inaccurate assessments as the agreed upon result of the issue can be inaccurate.